Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Manson Family’s Youngest Member Shares How She Was Seduced by a Madman at Age 14 — Then Helped Send Him to Prison

By Elaine Aradillas•@elaineja

Posted on October 18, 2017 at 9:21am EDT

Though it’s been more than 50 years since Dianne Lake was a teenager
in the Los Angeles area, deep into the counterculture of the 1960s,
there’s one memory that stands out to her more than the others: the
first time she met Charles Manson.

“He was extremely intelligent,” Lake, now 64 and living outside of
L.A., tells PEOPLE. “He had the incredible ability to pick up on other
people’s weaknesses and their needs and their desires, and he could
fulfill those.”

It’s a skill Manson turned to deadly ends, as Lake would learn.

For the first time in 47 years, she is breaking her silence about
living with him and being the youngest member of his cult, the so-called
“Manson family.”

In Member of the Family, a new book out Oct. 24 and
exclusively excerpted in PEOPLE, Lake details her experiences falling
under Manson’s spell — and, eventually, how she was free of him.

In 1967, at the age of 14, Lake navigated through communes and
love-ins after her parents, a homemaker mom and
former-Marine-turned-artist, “dropped out” of society and gave her a
note granting their permission to live on her own.

A few months later, she met up with Manson at a party in Topanga, California.

“I needed love and affection, and I needed a family. I needed to feel
like I belonged somewhere,” Lake says. “And he perceived that from the
get-go.”

For more on the Manson family’s youngest member, pick up this week’s issue, on newsstands Friday.

215 comments:

Was she the girl that had those loopey hippy parents that pinned a note to her shirt and gave her to Manson? This stuff all runs together sometimes.

I'm glad these people come back and tell it like it is. Manson was a pathetic perennial loser who just used these kids for his own means. He's a liar and a loser! And he still doesn't have the guts to admit what he did. And he never will.

Yes she was given permission by her parents to do anything Manson wanted her to do. Angela landsbury gave her daughter the same kind of note. I hope she has some insight in the book and not the same story we’ve all heard a thousand times.

Kids dont know shit at 14 although they THINK they do, she didnt know anything, its just gonna be more of the same "cult leader brainwashing" garbage, just more bullshit for the soccer mom tabloid Casey Anthony crowd

Kids dont know shit at 14 although they THINK they do, she didnt know anything, its just gonna be more of the same "cult leader brainwashing" garbage, just more bullshit for the soccer mom tabloid Casey Anthony crowd

She knows plenty. Looking forward to getting and reading her book also, Katie. She must've been a strong young girl to survive the intense physical, emotional, and sexual abuse inflicted on her by Charlie, and respond as well she did in her recovery from the horrors of neglect, abuse, and living with murderers. Can't you just see Tex bragging to her about he was the one killing and butchering...it's no wonder she looked so traumatized in early photos. She's been an educated, accomplished, successful woman for decades, while Tex sits in prison building models and whining about his stolen belongings. Can't wait to read her book! I wonder if she gives her parents a pass. I think they should've been prosecuted for child neglect...

Thanks Marliese! I totally agree!! Her parents should definitely have been prosecuted for leaving a 14 year old child with an old creepy hippy convict with a dirty harem and a smattering of filthy hippy men who were too damn lazy to get a real job and were just looking for trouble. Disgusting!

Hi Katie, Really, I agree. i once said that they were dirty...someone found the idea hilarious and blasted me that no, it was a simple matter of bed head...regarding the raid photos! Personally, I think what would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic is that anyone could look at those photos and come up with the thought they were clean, organic farmers, caught with bed head when the evil establishment busted their peaceful sleep. They were unhealthy, garbage eating, vd riddled drop outs, thieves, liars, and eventually, some of them..brutally violent murderers. I hate it when their existence at Spahn's Ranch and other places they squatted on is candy coated. Looking forward to this book, and I'm so glad she got out, that people finally sincerely cared for her and helped her heal. Isn't she the one that, holed up with Tex at Barker or some other hell hole in Death Valley said she couldn't wait for her first kill...? She descended into schizophrenia thanks to Charlie and crew. (And their clean living, peaceful existence!) Thank God she got out, rather....was rescued when she was...

Right Marliese. You don't even have to see pictures of them to know they're filth-ridden. Their hedonistic lifestyle of constant orgies and drug taking says it all. People who take a lot of drugs don't even brush their teeth, much less take a bath! I'll bet there wasn't a toothbrush or a bar of soap at that Ranch. The fact that they would even have girls younger than 18 in their drug-fueled orgies speaks volumes as to what kind of people these were.

Yeah she was holed up with Tex at some Ranch and he admitted to her he killed Sharon Tate. I'm looking forward to reading her book and see if he said anything else regarding the murders that we don't know.

i once said that they were dirty...someone found the idea hilarious and blasted me that no, it was a simple matter of bed head...regarding the raid photos!

Twas I that mentioned your comment and I never blasted you at all. I think you said something like Charlie looked like a rat in the Spahn raid photos and I pointed out they'd just been woken up. I also said that the way you had put it really made me laugh. Even now, I remember having a hearty laugh about it. But I never criticized you for it.

Personally, I think what would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic is that anyone could look at those photos and come up with the thought they were clean, organic farmers, caught with bed head when the evil establishment busted their peaceful sleep

I never intimated that they were in a state of permanent cleanliness. But even the cleanest of people aren't usually fresh and fragrant when woken out of a sleep at 6am. Even if they've bathed and brushed their teeth the night before, one can be a little frowsy ! How many models step straight out of bed to a shoot? How many of us climb straight out of bed and head straight to work without the interim stage of cleaning up and grooming first ? Even if Charlie and Danny DeCarlo had bathed in the stream the night before after the Straight Satans had gone home, the way they were rousted would have had them looking rough, the same way rich respectable folk like Diego Maradona and John & Yoko & Hugh Grant and scores of others did when they got busted and grabbed without warning by the police and processed without a chance for a clean up.

George Stimpson in his rebuttal to Simon's book goes into dirty hippy photos: ALL the photos provided by LE & media are to portray them as dirty hippies. He contends that private photos show them to be classy sharp dressers etc. Those mean old police being the man and always giving those poor loving peace filled Hippies a hard time made them that way. Of course a number of these did commit mass murder. Always concerned about appearance they took fresh close or took the victims clothes. Sandra always looked pretty clean during her interviews explaining why the murders were perfect in every way.

George Stimpson in his rebuttal to Simon's book goes into dirty hippy photos: ALL the photos provided by LE & media are to portray them as dirty hippies

And if you look in the comments section, while I agreed that Simon the author was being a bit naughty there, there was evidence from a variety of sources {including people that had been with the Family} that cleanliness wasn't first order at Spahn or Barker.But you'd still look rough if you were awoken in a raid at 6 in the morning !

The comment moderation has been activated for this blog. If you are a member, it won't affect you at all. Business as usual. If you're a non-member, your comment will be placed in the moderation folder awaiting approval by a blog administrator, which will most likely be me.

All non-member bloggers are still welcome to make comments. SAG, if you want to comment and your comments are appropriate, they will be posted. If they're not, they won't.

I'll check the moderation folder several times during the day so no one will be too inconvenienced.

I'm sorry. last thing I want to do is have you monitor comments especially on my behalf. Please just leave it open. I give you my word that I will not read or respond to SAG's comments ever again. I spoke my peace & I gave some honor to my Dad and all the WWII living & dead. I never would want to take our blog in a wrong direction. Until this happened and I know I needed to just ignore it. I let my passion personal loved ones get in the way. My sincere apologies to all. I should not have brought anyone else's names into my comment to SAG. To: Katie, Marlises, Grim, Beauders & of course LS, I apologize for doing that. Please allow SAG to express his opinions and everyone can decide for themselves how to react or simply not react. Peace.

Team, I'm sorry. last thing I wanted you to do is have spend time to monitor comments especially on my behalf. Please just leave it open. I give you my word that I will not read or respond to SAG's comments ever again. I spoke my peace & I gave some honor to my Dad and all the WWII living & dead. I never would want to take our blog in a wrong direction. Until this happened and I know I needed to just ignore it. My sincere apologies to you all. I should not have brought anyone else's names into my comments to SAG. Katie, Marlises, Grim, Beauders & you LS. Peace.

Bobby the comment moderation isn't on because of you, so don't worry about it. I warned SAG more than once to cut it out. He's welcome to make comments that are appropriate if he wants to. And I know he knows what that means.

Bobby, your comments went into the moderation folder, and since you're a member and that shouldn't have happened, I'm assuming you are posting from a different e-mail address that the blog didn't recognize. Please use the e-mail address you signed up for with the blog so you won't be bothered with the moderation. If you can't remember what that e-mail address is, e-mail me or Lynyrd and we'll let you know. I won't post it on here.

As far as how long the moderation will continue I don't know, that's up to Lynyrd. When he feels things are on an even keel and he can remove it, he will.

Bobby you're a sweet guy, you've been a good friend, and you're an important member of this blog.

I am very much looking forward to Dianne Lake's book. I hope she discusses in her book certain "Happenings" at Spahn Ranch when she was there, regarding certain "Things" that were told to me in the early 80's. But if she doesn't, I will totally understand.

Susan said:"Theres only 2 people still alive who know the reasons WHY these murders happened, Tex and Linda."

I would agree, that the list of people who know the "real motive" at this point (if there is one), is pretty short.

It's a short list, no doubt.

You can obviously discount Bugliosi and Atkins by default.

I don't believe Pat or Leslie were calling any shots. I think they were simply pawns.

Personally, I would add Manson to your list.

Even if we assume that Cielo was completely "Tex's bag"... I think Charlie was privy to all the "goings-on".At an absolute minimum, I think Manson knew WHY Tex was there...

As for Dianne Lake specifically, I would be shocked if her book attempts to "solve the case".I don't think that's the intent, of her book.

My guess, is that her book will stick fairly rigidly to her own personal story and experiences while at the Ranch, etc.

Of course, that's only a guess.

Having said that:My belief, is that every book has some insight to offer.

If out of every 100 pages written, there are just 5 pages of useful insight, then that's 5 more pages at our disposal.That's the way, you have to approach these books.

If you're looking for one book to decipher this entire case and phenomenon, from beginning to end, with 100% accuracy, you're looking for a 4-leaf clover.(*Although, it's fair to say, that some books offer much more useful information than others).

As for Manson specifically, I think he was definitely privy to the "real motive" (at the time), but quite frankly, I don't think he even remembers, at this point.I think Manson lost his marbles a few years back.

To interview Manson in regards to "motive" now... although interesting, would be an exercise in futility.He'd eat-up the attention... spin 100 yarns... but in the end, it would lead nowhere.

In short:Charles Manson has told so many stories... spent so much time in isolation... and is so old now... that he's bonkers.Can I prove it? No.But, that's my honest belief.

So yes... the list of people who know the reasons WHY these murders took place, is pretty short at this point.I'd agree with that statement.

I was wondering today if Manson has ever said anything about the people involved in this case that have died so far, especially the ones he was mad at or didn't like, like Bugliosi, Doris Tate, Dennis Wilson, Terry Melcher, etc.

Actually Charlie has been the most consistent all along, hes maintained from the beginning that he wasnt involved at least in Cielo, my position is Tex told him he knew about the drugs Frykowski and Sebring were going to "sell" him, i put sell in quotes because Tex (and Linda) had no intention of paying a plug nickel for anything and he was as stunned as anyonecwhen Tex got back and told him what happened which in my opinion us the biggest reason Charlie went back there to see for himself, the next night he fully expected Tex to walk away from Waverly with a significant amount of cash, both Charlie and Pat are suffering from dementia at this point so i doubt anything will ever come from them, barring a miracle or death bed confession from Tex or Linda we'll never hear any of them tell the real motive, i really wish Bill Garretson would have agreed to hypnosis because he knew more than he let on

Hes said repeatedly that Vince did what he had to do and made a shitload of money selling the Helter Skelter nonsense and said he was a very smart guy, hes said a few times that he though Dennis was a good guy and that he felt Melcher re nigged on his promises, Doris i think he wouldnt have had anything bad to say about because she said repeatedly before she died that he was set up and the murders were Tex and the girls responsibility

I was wondering today if Manson has ever said anything about the people involved in this case that have died so far, especially the ones he was mad at or didn't like, like Bugliosi, Doris Tate, Dennis Wilson, Terry Melcher

Yeah, he purportedly has. But it depends on whose version one believes. He speaks at length about Dennis Wilson in both the Nuel Emmons and George Stimson books but thinks that Emmons' one was "bullshit."But he's said stuff down the years about a lot of people, including some that you mention.

If U knew Suzy like I knew Suzy said...

Theres only 2 people still alive who know the reasons WHY these murders happened, Tex and Linda

Everyone's entitled to be wrong !

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

As for Manson specifically, I think he was definitely privy to the "real motive" (at the time), but quite frankly, I don't think he even remembers, at this point

I think that there are criminals that wonder what it would be like to kill or be involved in killing or command the ultimate control of having someone killed but never facing the fall for it. Most won't act on it and come to think of it, it's not only criminals that think along those lines. But some cross that line and justify it any which way. And you know, some may genuinely, in their minds justify their actions by allying it to a cause or righteous revenge or dog eat dog business or whatever.There's a very dark side to us as human beings.....I'm a big fan of "Columbo" and "CSI Miami" and over the years I've noticed something; that in Columbo, very rarely is the murderer a stereotypical thug or regular criminal killer. You get it a bit more in CSI but even there, the killers are often ordinary normal seeming people. I thought it was quite interesting that the writers of these kind of shows pointed very much to ordinary people as opposed to career criminals having that dark side that can escalate to murder. Charlie was a career criminal that felt that he'd been kicked about long enough. I personally do think that the 3 motives put forward during his prosecution were accurate but underpinning all of that, in combination with elements of his life up to that point {including the oft overlooked acid usage} was that thing, to do a murder. There was no love lost between him and society at large and the specific motivation to do the specific act at that specific moment in August '69 isn't as important as the seed bed that was there to be drawn from.

He was angrier at her for what actually happened at Cielo than her blabbing about it, her blabbing about it got everyone involved pissed at her, Pat and Leslie would barely make eye contact with her for years afterward in prison

And I do think that Charlie went back that night and left those glasses, but with the goofiness of the LAPD investigating this case, he could have left a Pez dispenser or a slinky or a Yo-Yo and it would have had the momentum in the case.

First of all the witchy comment was just more of Charlies bullshit talk, second nobody knows what quantity of drugs Rostau delivered up there or what Tex walked away with but we can safely assume that Rostau isnt going to tell law enforcement "oh well lets see, if i remember correctly i brought up 2500 hits of mescaline, 5 grand worth of MDA and 8 ounces of coke", hed be a fool to do so and would set himself up for constant surveillance and harassment from LAPD and Tex sure as hell isnt telling anyone except Linda, Charlie and possibly Susan becsuse the girls were in on his speed use and dealing and im sure he told Charlie what he got

I agree about him going back and when you really think about it it was one of the riskiest things ive ever heard of, driving that 59 Ford into Beverly Hills at 3 in the morning going up to a dead end cul de sac with 5 dead bodies with only a cliff to run down if police drive up is beyond ballsy but Charlie was faced with a dilemma, sit back and wait and wonder when LAPD show up at the ranch or take matters into your own hand and go back and do what has to be done, the biggest mystery to me is how Garretson escapes death TWICE within hours, we know someone went back because no prints were found on Parents car and im sure all four of them pushed it back where it was found

Also leaving the glasses actually wasnt a bad idea as far as throwing off the cops because when you read the homicide report they did an extensive search of eye doctors all over southern California who coukd have filled that prescription for those lenses

Obviously i have no proof its just my feeling, also as far as that Sawyer interview goes he was very disoriented and half goofy during it, i suspect he had just gotten out of solitary pretty recently before that interview, his hair and beard were very long and messy and he was alot more animated than usual during it

Naturally. For him to deviate in any way is him saying "I am guilty of these murders." And he can't say that.Back in the 50s, according to Ed Sanders, Charlie, being questioned by the FBI, admitted to stealing a car though this wasn't what he was being questioned about and this got him in further trouble which led to further troubles and eventual jail time. He spent much of the 50s pleading guilty and by the start of the 60s he found himself facing a 10 year stretch. After that he learned his lessons and pleaded guilty no more. Especially for murder or conspiracy. It was no more "have a chat with the psychiatrist with a view towards probation." Even when he was doing all those interviews with lawyers and the media before the trial, it was with this in his mind, that he had helped kill Shorty, and, as he believed at the time, killed Lotsapoppa. He never admits to murder. Even when he's bang to rights and solidly placed as he was with all the things he's in jail for, he never said "OK, you got me there." He spins yarns so incredulous that eeven the people that should corroborate him like Bobby, don't.Good liars have to be consistent. And Charlie has danced every which way. You can see where he's coming from, what has he got to gain from coming clean ?

Let me ask you this, do you think Bugliosi REALLY believed Helter Skelter as a motive? Forget the fact that he actually admitted years later that he thought it wasnt, what is your honest opinion? If he believes it wasnt the motive doesnt that make him as much or more of a liar than Charlie?

"...I think that there are criminals that wonder what it would be like to kill or be involved in killing or command the ultimate control of having someone killed but never facing the fall for it. Most won't act on it and come to think of it, it's not only criminals that think along those lines. But some cross that line and justify it any which way. And you know, some may genuinely, in their minds justify their actions by allying it to a cause or righteous revenge or dog eat dog business or whatever.

Charlie was a career criminal that felt that he'd been kicked about long enough. I personally do think that the 3 motives put forward during his prosecution were accurate but underpinning all of that, in combination with elements of his life up to that point {including the oft overlooked acid usage} was that thing, to do a murder. There was no love lost between him and society at large and the specific motivation to do the specific act at that specific moment in August '69 isn't as important as the seed bed that was there to be drawn from."

=============================================

In short, I agree with you.

Bugliosi, in later years, was asked:Do you still believe Helter Skelter was the motive?

Bugliosi responded:"In retrospect, it seems the motives were several and disparate".

Disparate - 1) things so unlike that there is no basis for comparison.2) essentially different in kind; not allowing comparison.Synonym - contrasting, different, differing, dissimilar, unalike, poles apart

The murders were a result of a shit storm of "disparate" factors.

There were many details and contributing factors... not the least of which, was heavy drug usage, and Charlie's bitterness.And the latter, cannot be overstated.

As you said:"There was no love lost between him and society at large and the specific motivation to do the specific act at that specific moment in August '69 isn't as important as the seed bed that was there to be drawn from."

I would submit, that Manson's "bitterness" is the "seed bed" of which you speak.That's the core factor, from which all the other (differing) contributing factor's emerge.

Leary and TomG have both put forth similar notions in the past.

In essence, they stated that the whole thing was a "cluster fuck" of haphazard circumstances (which cannot be fully explained, understood, or pieced together), but at it's core, Manson's bitterness is a common thread.

In essence, they felt we were "overthinking" a cluster fuck of circumstances.

TomG used to say: "Think long, think wrong".

As an aside, Dilligaf once said:"This case had more loose ends, than tassels on a rug".

Manson's biggest crime? Oh Lordy!! Manson's biggest crime started with Lottsapoppa, and then went on to cutting Gary Hinman's ear off.

That was SO UN-neccesary! Gary didn't do a damn thing to these monsters!

And we all KNOW he did those two things. And that was the start. Manson was a bitter soul who was mad because he wanted to be a rock singer, and his songs SUCKED so they never got published, like 10 million other would-be singers in the 60's, but he decided to act on it.

Why? Because he had a stupid harem who would follow his orders.

Manson was NOTHING without those followers! Without those followers, he was just a loser stealing cars and begging for dimes on the street corner!

You can find either Tex or Bobbys footprint in every one of the 9 killings and 1 shooting (Crowe), Crowe- Tex ripoff Hinman-Bobby/Straight Satans drug deal and also Susan involved Cielo-Tex/Linda drug rip off and again Susan involved along with Pat who are both involved with Texs speed LaBianca- Tex scheme to get money for move to Barker also Pat and Leslie (one of Bobbys girls) involved and Susan and Linda along for the drive Shea- Tex involved......all crimes connected by drug/money motive except Shea which was to silence him and all of the same key players

Well, Manson shot Crowe, Manson cut off Hinman's ear, Manson went to Cielo Drive and left faulty evidence, Manson drove them to LaBianca and tied Mr. Labianca up and told Tex & the girls to finish it, Susan and Linda weren't involved in Shea's murder, so why did you mention that?

Manson hasn't ONE TIME expressed any remorse for these killings. He hasn't apologized to one person for these killings. He hasn't reached out to one family member and said "oh I'm sorry, I didn't tell them to do this".

Well, as to why Charlie didn't ask others to kill, I don't know, except for the fact that so many former family members have said that Charlie seemed to know what people were capable of. And I think he sought out the few that would do something as dastardly as he wanted.

SAG said:"Let me ask you this, do you think Bugliosi REALLY believed Helter Skelter as a motive? Forget the fact that he actually admitted years later that he thought it wasnt, what is your honest opinion? If he believes it wasnt the motive doesnt that make him as much or more of a liar than Charlie?"

================================

Three or four years ago, I asked Dilligaf a similar question.

I asked:"Is it legal for a Prosecutor to present a motive (to the jury) that he's unsure of, or a motive which he knows is probably inaccurate, in an effort to convict a person whom he feels is guilty?"(Those weren't my EXACT words of course, but that was the jist of my question).

My question (to Dilligaf) didn't so much address the "moral" aspect of using a questionable motive, but moreso the "legal" aspect. But just the same, it was a similar question.

Dilligaf answered my question thoroughly.

I'll see if I can dig-up that conversation, if/when I have a chance...

(In case you're not aware, Dilligaf is a retired Prosecutor, a good friend, and a very smart guy.)

It fits Charlies behavoir pattern, he shoots Crowe because hes afraid he'll come to the ranch and raise hell which he had threatened to do, Hinman he went to straighten out Bobbys problem, he went back to Cielo to throw cops off and he went to Waverly because he knew either Leno or Rosemary or both had a significant amount of money, Shea was because he knew too much, people dont kill or order 9 people killed because theyre "mad at society", life doesnt work that way even for Charles Manson

Well, he shot Crowe because he was afraid Crowe was gonna kill him. Crowe was Tex's fault, but Charlie got involved because HE IS INVOLVED!!

He went to Hinman's to try and scare Hinman to give up the "$5000.00" that he thought Hinman had. Even though he didn't.

BTW, he had called Hinman prior to Bobby going there to try and get Hinman to "join his family" and give the supposed $5000.00" to the family. When Hinman refused, he sent Bobby. He went to Hinman's to threaten and scare Hinman to give up the money. But there wasn't any money, so Hinman died a horrible death for NOTHING because of that COCKROACH!

He went to Cielo Drive to make sure there weren't any fingerprints or anything connecting the cops to him and to throw the cops off with those glasses.

He went to Waverly because he wanted to make sure "they did it right this time", according to his OWN WORDS on Diane Sawyer.

Where did i say that Charlie wasnt involved? Even if Tex and the girls killed because they thought it would please Charlie or they would gain his respect and acceptance hes still INVOLVED but it doesnt mean hes guilty of first degree murder

The Satans had already come to the ranch and beaten and threatened Bobby, he knew DeCarlo was a gun expert and had access to an arsenal of guns hed even been at the ranch shooting machine guns with Charlie and the girls

Manson is both and egotist and nihilist. We all know that.But he is also what I call a prison libertarian. His most fervent belief is that EVERYONE owns their own actions. This belief is sacrosanct in prison.

Think of it this way. A married couple has issues. The husband isn't paying enough attention to his wife so she has an affair. Who is at fault? The general public (us) will split on the question. But Charlie would not hesitate...it's the wife - her choice to take another man.See, with regards to TLB, Charlie sees himself akin to the husband. Charlie still and always will see himself as not physically responsible for anyone's death.Yes...he participated in the mauling of Shea but with the belief that Shea was a snitch and in the prison belief that is justifiable homicide. Crowe was self-defense and Hinman was all Bobby. According to Manson that is.

So tonight Charlie sits in a cell all alone and he believes with all his heart and mind that he does not belong there. And he will go to his grave believing that.Even if he were to admit to telling Bobby to do...telling Tex to do it...telling Clem to do it...Charlie Manson would still believe and argue that since HE DIDN'T DO IT then he should not be held responsible.That is Manson's belief and pathology. The problem is - it is nobody else's.Well, strike that - there are small squad of supporters like Star and George S and such that believe Manson was railroaded.

Charlie was a nihilist - he believed in nothing. Those who live that way often engage or support violence. The Vegas shooter was a nihilist. They won't find a motive per se. Just like Charlie, he lashed out. When you believe in nothing...it is a most natural thing to do.

I think Mary said $5000 to the cops during her interview. I don't remember what Susan said. It's funny how Bobby going to Hinman's was about drugs, but neither Mary nor Susan EVER heard anything about drugs. They just heard about money that Bobby wanted.

The Satans beating Bobby has nothing to do with Hinman. I don't care what kind of expert DeCarlo was, has nothing to do with Hinman.

I don't believe it was about drugs. I think it was about Charlie wanting money, and he thought Hinman had inherited $5000.

Susan claimed it was 20 grand then claimed she didnt know, Mary changed hercstory a few times as well, why did the Satans beat and threaten Bobby then? And before you say they didnt a few people at thevranch and Bobby said they did, DeCarlo drove them there himself

I agree with alot of what you say especially in regards to Charlie being an egotist and a nihilist but there are millions of people those two things apply to who arent murderers and i think Charlie fits into that group, for some reason most people refuse to even entertain the thought that Charlie really didnt order Tex and the girls to kill anyone or that the Crowe shooting was done in response to a genuine threat from him, ill be the first to admit Charlies fault and guilt in cutting Hinman and probably knowing what Shortys fate would be in Tex, Clem, Bruce, Bill Vance and Larry Baileys hands, the fact that so many people refuse to even consider what i laid out shows you what a masterful job Bugliosi did in painting Manson as the boogeyman and Charlie being the unloved attention starved kid ate it right up and played right into Vinces hands

"Manson is both and egotist and nihilist. We all know that.But he is also what I call a prison libertarian. His most fervent belief is that EVERYONE owns their own actions. This belief is sacrosanct in prison.

Think of it this way. A married couple has issues. The husband isn't paying enough attention to his wife so she has an affair. Who is at fault? The general public (us) will split on the question. But Charlie would not hesitate...it's the wife - her choice to take another man.See, with regards to TLB, Charlie sees himself akin to the husband. Charlie still and always will see himself as not physically responsible for anyone's death.Yes...he participated in the mauling of Shea but with the belief that Shea was a snitch and in the prison belief that is justifiable homicide. Crowe was self-defense and Hinman was all Bobby. According to Manson that is.

So tonight Charlie sits in a cell all alone and he believes with all his heart and mind that he does not belong there. And he will go to his grave believing that.

Even if he were to admit to telling Bobby to do...telling Tex to do it...telling Clem to do it...Charlie Manson would still believe and argue that since HE DIDN'T DO IT then he should not be held responsible. That is Manson's belief and pathology. The problem is - it is nobody else's.Well, strike that - there are small squad of supporters like Star and George S and such that believe Manson was railroaded.

Charlie was a nihilist - he believed in nothing. Those who live that way often engage or support violence. The Vegas shooter was a nihilist. They won't find a motive per se. Just like Charlie, he lashed out. When you believe in nothing...it is a most natural thing to do."

=======================================

I agree with your post, especially the points, which I highlighted in bold.

Ok just looked at both of Brunners interviews, in the 12/69 interview with LASO she said the amount they thought Gary had was 30 thousand and in her 4/70 interview with LASO and DAs Stovitz and Katz she said it was 3 thousand, in both interviews she said it was Bruce who drove her, Susan and Bobby there on Friday night so as far as her statements go i was wrong about DeCarlo driving them there but im pretty sure i read it somewhere else, maybe in Susan or Bobbys statements

Yeah I'm pretty sure Bruce drove them over there. Plus he drove Charlie over there later to threaten Gary and cut his ear off.

Well, I bought Diane's book and I'm on about page 62. So far, it's just about her childhood. She's explaining how her parents "turned hippy" to lay the groundwork of why she was even with the Manson bunch. I'm tempted to jump ahead, but I'll just keep reading.

In one interview not sure if it was Mary or Ella it was Vance that drove them. I'm wondering if all of these crimes were connected. Maybe Crowe,Hinman,Cielo and Labianca we're all part of the same drug ring? I 100% agree these murders we're not about a race war. They all jumped on Atkins story to appear crazy LVH testified the Part interview was nonsense

Well Diane wasn't a killer, so it's interesting to read her take on this whole "family" thing. She was probably a big fan of Charlie & the gang, but we know that not all of the family was into killing.

I would buy a book by one of these people associated with the family before I'd buy a book by someone who claims to "know the truth" and when you read it, you find it's just a bunch of malarkey.

In fact, I think most of these books about this subject contain lots of "malarkey".

You know, Tex claimed in his testimony that Linda was driving the car and he was in the backseat without a seat sleeping the whole time, and the girls were bossing him around and telling him what to do.

Yeah Susan, I wonder if he said all those lies on the Tex Tapes. That's probably why he doesn't want them released. He doesn't want everyone reminded of what a liar he is.

I'm surprised he wants to go to another prison. He's got to be a big target. He walks around like he's better than everybody else, and he's probably killed more people than the other guys in the prison.

Katie, I hope that you will consider doing a book review once you're done reading this one. I'm still reading thru these vast archives and learning more and more with every thread. I'm in awe of the vast amount of knowledge on this blog, and all the amazing personalities here! Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge with everyone, I really appreciate it!

I know he bragged to another prisoner about how much of a "bad ass" he was for stabbing Sharon and his overkill job on Frykowski, the only physical retribution i can remember was the guy who came up behind him and stabbed him with some type of homemade shank and then tried to throw him over the railing of the tier in 2013, the only things i believe about his generally bullshit testimony from his trisl is that i believe that him and the girls did walk in the front door after being invited in by Voytek and Jay and i think the lines were cut but i think it was after on their way out, the cut window screen i think was a ruse by Charlie or whoever went back afterwards

Susan, that makes no sense. They all said that Voytek was asleep on the couch when they came in and Jay was back in Sharon's room. How could they have answered the door? We know the lines were cut because you can see them on the ground in the footage & photos after the killings. Why cut them on the way out? How are dead people gonna use the phone?

Read the first homicide report, near the end police give a synopsis of how they think the crime happened, the lines they say could have been cut either before or after, i believe it was after just as another way to make it look like a residential robbery

The huge mystery for me is Bill Garretson, he is the most puzzling piece of the whole thing, if you believe Manson went back which i think most people do, how does he escape death twice within hours? We know he was there at midnight and at roughly 9 am when hes arrested, was he hiding the whole time? If you believe his stories 30 years after on the E special and his TLB radio appearance he heard alot so whats the deal?

Yeah I was gonna say that too. Garretson is the biggest mystery of all in these murders. The guy HAD to have heard what was going on. That guest house isn't that far away from where Abigail was mowed down and stabbed to death.

He admits he heard the gunfire that shot Parent, but he thought it was firecrackers.

So, knowing that something horrible must have happened, he just hunkers down in that house for the night? It seems like he would have waited a while, then peeked out to see if the coast was clear and hightail it outta there.

What was he thinking? He was just gonna get up the next day and resume his role as "caretaker" being careful to step over the bodies, which, BTW he wasn't really doing much around the house except moving the sprinkler around on watering days. They had gardeners, so what was it take he "took care of".

Not saying i agree with it but Doris Tate had a theory that Garretson was some type of lookout and contact guy for Tex saying that she had been told that they thought Sharon wasnt going to be home because Garretson didnt see Sharons Ferrari because it was in the shop, i have a hard time believing that because listening to Bill he sounds like he couldnt hurt a fly, Sandy Good supposedly told Patti Tate at a parole hearing for someone that "Sharon wasnt supposed to be home, Tex checked" for whatever thats worth and Krenwinkel told the parole board once that as far as she knew "the women" werent supposed to be there

I agree on Garretson not knowing Tex or Sandy and i dont think he knew Krenwinkel either, Brian had the "Patty Montgomery" on the radio show and she sounded believable to me, she was Bills friend Darryl Kistlers girlfriend and her and her friend Debbie Tidwell spent alot of time at the guesthouse the summer and spring of 69, i dont think Sandy was saying she called vut that someone at the ranch had called and supposedly found out that Sharon wasnt supposed to be home

Well, I don't believe Sandy at all. I don't believe someone called the ranch and said Sharon wasn't supposed to be there.

From everything I've read, nobody at Spahn's Ranch even knew who Sharon was. In fact, when they watched the news the next day, they finally discovered that a "movie star" lived there. They didn't know anything about Sharon.

As far as the Lake book goes, I'm halfway thru. I'm taking notes. I haven't read about Harold True yet, but I've got half a book to go.

We all know that Charlie was a pimp. That goes without discussion. And for him to offer his "girls" to certain folks to obtain housing, security, food, etc. is just a daily fodder for Charlie's behavior.

But I'll make notes and make sure I'll inform you of Dianne's take on this crappola.

They had a few short clips of Bugliosi talking about Charlie what looks to be maybe a year before he died and my God did he look and sound old, it was weird seeing the sharp quick Vince the milkman stalker looking like he was ready to keel over

Katie when you get time google The Manson Myth by Denise Noe, she wrote a great piece for crime magazine and one of her theories on Charlie and the girls trips in the bus up and down the coast and into New Mexico, Arizone, Nevada and other places was he was pimping the girls out and when i read it i was like damn id never thought about it but it makes sense, Charlie had been pimping in Hollywood in the late 50s at his apartment on Franklin under "3 star enterprises" so its really not that much of a stretch to think hed be doing it again, they had to come up with money somehow

Well, Dianne explains that Charlie learned how to pimp in prison, along with a lot of other things.

That's not news, it's been reported many other times by other authors.

That's why Charlie gathered his harem of girls, so he could control other men. He wasn't athletic, muscular, good looking, smart or tall, so he had to control other men with his bevy of girls who would do anything he said.

It's nothing new. Cult leaders have been doing that for years.

I've seen Bugliosi as an old man. No thanks, don't want to keep seeing it.

Charlie managed to suck the life out of everything....

One thing I just can't understand about Dianne's book is that she would put up with Charlie striking her in anger. She tries to defend her feelings about that in the book, but I can't think of ANY defense for a man to strike a woman. Period.

Lol! I totally agree. I was just pointing out all the different stories they've told. I'm pretty sure it was Ella that said Vance.Bruce is the one that drove them I'm sure. Found it interesting when I heard Vance in one of the audio archive tapes

I think he went back as well even though it was stupid of course Manson was known to do stupid things and take risks no intelligent criminal would. It was like he wanted to go back to prison. That could explain his behavior at the trial too.

They had some type of relationship he took her back home where that was I cannot recall maybe Michigan? I'm going to have to check which interview that was in. I know it was on Cielo drives site. It was not questioned surprisingly

I dont care what he calls me, im not a sensitive snowflake, i just laugh at him

It was always done in jest, the idea was to make you laugh. There was no negatives involved. If you notice, they were all song titles.

we can safely assume that Rostau isnt going to tell law enforcement "oh well lets see, if i remember correctly i brought up 2500 hits of mescaline, 5 grand worth of MDA and 8 ounces of coke", hed be a fool to do so and would set himself up for constant surveillance and harassment from LAPD

Actually, that's not true. Firstly, Rostau was already by August '69 on the LAPD radar. When he was robbed and shot back in April, the cops discovered drugs in his abode so him being a dealer wasn't a secret.Secondly, if he had delivered drugs to Cielo, he would have had nothing to lose by saying so because the police weren't interested in drug dealers unless they had done the murder. You love to quote from the Tate progress reports. Well read them and see how many drug dealers they hauled in and questioned and eliminated. In his interview with Billy Doyle, Earl Deemer made it clear that the dealers were of no interest to LAPD;

WILLIAM DOYLE: May I ask you something?

LT. EARL DEEMER: Yes.

WILLIAM DOYLE: Is any of my testimony, will my testimony concern whether I was into that.

LT. EARL DEEMER: No.

WILLIAM DOYLE: I have nothing to hide protect or hide, but I don’t want to cause anybody any more undo pain. This secondary investigation has caused a lot of people, a lot of pain, because a lot of people feel that they’re guilty or they have something to hide about something, and go through enormous emotional wringers. This is what Cass is hysterical about.

LT. EARL DEEMER: Well, of course

WILLIAM DOYLE: I don’t want to hurt her but I want to help you with everything I can.

LT. EARL DEEMER: In this background, we are running into all this drug business. Now, whether if drugs actually had anything to do with the killing, we’ll see.

WILLIAM DOYLE: I tell you everything I know and you put the picture together because I can’t, I don’t have any of the, any of the – you people obviously have a big puzzle you’re trying to fit together and I’ll just tell you want I can.

LT. EARL DEEMER: We don’t have any interest in drugs per se. That’s been entirely separate from it – for instance, Harrigan told us a great deal about drugs and we gave him a free ride. We’re not really investigating anything that has to do with drugs; only as it has interest in this case

WILLIAM DOYLE: Can you give me an idea of what Harrigan's told you?

LT. EARL DEEMER: Well, he's indicated your uh, part in this to some extent. But again, we told Harrigan that we weren’t interested in —

WILLIAM DOYLE: My part in this?

LT. EARL DEEMER: Well, as far as your part in the drugs. Your use of drugs and you being at these parties, and taking part in it. And of course I know...

They knew Rostau wasn't involved. If he had delivered drugs to Cielo like his girlfriend said he'd told her to the cops, then whether he denied it or admitted it is moot. The cops knew that whether he was bullshitting or not, there was a connection. And they satisfied themselves he could be eliminated.But in your obsession to hang this on a Tex drug thaing he had to have done the delivery, regardless of whether he said he did not.

we know someone went back because no prints were found on Parents car and im sure all four of them pushed it back where it was found

We know nothing of the kind. If you push a car you are just as likely to leave smudged prints as clear ones.

Also leaving the glasses actually wasnt a bad idea as far as throwing off the cops because when you read the homicide report they did an extensive search of eye doctors all over southern California who coukd have filled that prescription for those lenses

This of course overlooks the fact that in the first couple of months, the cops had absolutely no idea who the perps were. And it wasn't a good idea to leave the glasses because all it did was delay the inevitable. All of the perps were caught weren't they ? By the end of that year.Yeah, leaving the glasses really was the mark of genius !

Obviously i have no proof its just my feeling, also as far as that Sawyer interview goes he was very disoriented and half goofy during it

Have you ever watched the entirety of the 1994 interview with Diane Sawyer ? It's very revealing and Charlie is at his most lucid. As is sometimes the case with him, he can't help himself and he says things that really sink him further in the mire. What he says about telling the women to write "Something witchy" is a good example. He was not bullshitting.

Or maybe hes actually telling the truth

There is always that possibility. However, by this stage of the game, in order for him to be telling the truth, there are so many other people and things that need to be unpicked, you'd have an easier job restoring a cake to its original ingredients....But you know Dave, Charlie lies, plain and simple. He lied during his trial when he said "Had you not arrested Robert Beausoleil for something he did not do...." when he knew full well that Bobby was guilty. He says a lot of things that are true too, let's not pretend that everything he says is untrue because that itself is untrue.But he lied in 1970 and he lies now, when it suits him.

Let me ask you this, do you think Bugliosi REALLY believed Helter Skelter as a motive? Forget the fact that he actually admitted years later that he thought it wasnt, what is your honest opinion? If he believes it wasnt the motive doesnt that make him as much or more of a liar than Charlie?

I have the infamous June '76 Penthouse interview which some of Bugliosi's detractors use as evidence of his later duplicity regarding HS. In that interview, Bugliosi does say: "I cannot conceive of his believing some of the things he preached about...Oh, he was a megalomaniac and would have loved to become leader of the world, but I find it difficult to think he believed that those mass murders would actually start a worldwide race war ....Whether he believed it, I would have to guess no."This gives one impression. However, about 2 sentences before this, comes this:

PENTHOUSE: "Why do you think Manson urged his followers to become murderers?"Bugliosi: "There were three main reasons. One was to ignite the war between blacks and whites that he called Helter Skelter, a war in which Manson saw himself as the ultimate beneficiary. He said the blacks would win but wouldn‘t be able to handle power and would look for leadership to those whites who'd survived. Charlietried to frame black people for his murders. The Manson family believed in Helter Skelter, hook, line and sinker. It was the family’s religion and credo."

So in the same interview, within 2 sentences, he states exactly what he thought one of the motives was. He later goes on to say : "I feel very strongly about the two other motivations he had. One was a kind of revenge....The third motive was his pre-occupation with death. Charlie was always lecturing the family about death and how beautiful it was." The fact that Bugliosi found it difficult to believe Manson really believed some of the things he talked about doesn't mean he doesn't think it wasn't one of the motives. He did state that "But Charlie is a very evil, sophisticated con man" which leads onto the part about him not being able to conceive of him believing certain things.Of course, he had the same problem with people that believe in God.

Bugliosi, in later years, was asked: Do you still believe Helter Skelter was the motive?

Bugliosi responded: "In retrospect, it seems the motives were several and disparate"

Which is entirely consistent with what he told the jury during the trial and what he said to Penthouse. HS is the part that most people tend to major on, even to the extent that it is spoken of to this day as "the motive." But Bugliosi presented 3 motives to the jury. It is always conveniently brushed aside and to do so does the entirety of the case a real disservice.

katie8753 said...

Bugliosi used the Helter Skelter theory to make sure Charlie was convicted. He didn't believe it, I don't believe it, I don't think anyone believes it

I don't buy that.If you really think about it, bringing in HS is near suicidal. It sounds so kooky to most people and you certainly could not make sure of anyone's conviction with it. Interestingly, it wasn't used to convict the women. Bugliosi stated in his closing argument that they didn't kill because of HS {he was wrong on that where Leslie was concerned}. The thing to understand about the book HS is that it outlines in more or less chronological fashion how the case was put together. Even before Bugliosi & Stovitz were on the case, things were starting to point in Charlie's direction. For example he was on the LaBianca detectives suspect list. Al Springer had tied him into Tate and LaBianca. Danny DeCarlo tied him to Tate, Hinman, Crowe {as it was thought} and Shea. Brooks Poston & Paul Crockett had spoken to the cops and told them about Shorty & HS. Once Bugliosi was on the scene investigating, the pointers fell more & more in Charlie's direction. Once Susan started blabbing the die was cast. But Bugliosi did not know why. But by Feb '70 he had found out why. And his direction became more pointed because he knew what it was that tied Charlie to the crimes even though the why was not necessary. Compare his questioning of Susan at the Grand Jury. HS barely gets a mention but the jury still indicted. Yet Bugliosi recognized that a motive is powerful evidence. So for him it represented evidence, circumstantial, but evidence nonetheless.Simon Davis, an Australian former lawyer, has written a very interesting book called "In a summer swelter" and I would recommend it to anyone & everyone. It's a very easy read. One of his really interesting directions is showing how Charlie was ripe for a shaking, independent of HS. He shows how a prosecution would have tied Charlie to the crimes.Bugliosi said in his book that he would have dumped HS in 2 seconds if something else had shown itself in the evidence. And therein lies the clue~ he followed the evidence and the evidence said that HS was one of the motives.I believe that it was. I know people that believe and have believed all kinds of esoteric things, stoned and sober, and have acted on those things. And as I've said before, as a Christian that believes in some of the things I do, I cannot just dismiss something like HS because it seems somewhat out there.

When did i say Rostau was a suspect? I said he delivered drugs to Cielo which he did, no dope dealer is going to admit to cops that they made a drug delivery i dont care if it was 15 years prior its just not done

Hey Katie did you know cops never lie to people they interview and if you push a car with your bare hands you dont leave any fingerprints? Shit i need to come here more often im learning all kinds of neat stuff lol

You can find either Tex or Bobbys footprint in every one of the 9 killings and 1 shooting (Crowe)

You can also find Charlie's in every one of them. No either about it.You know who else's footprint is in every one ? Susan, if you believe Charlie's words. With Crowe, part of the supposed reason the money couldn't be given back was because Charlie had sent Susan & Tex away to the hills with it. Hinman, Cielo and Waverley we know about. Shea, she supposedly helped with the clean up.A question worth asking is this; what is the more likely occurrence, more than 10 members of a group all inexplicably and simultaneously turning to murder or those 10 people being guided in that direction ?

except Shea which was to silence him

According to Ed Sanders: "On August 10, Sunday, Sergeant William Gleason of the Los Angeles sheriff's office visited Kitty Lutesinger at her parents' ranch where she had fled following Manson's kill-threats. Sergeant Gleason was compiling a file of disturbing information about the Spahn Ranch preparing for a huge police raid to come the following week. He had become aware of Miss Lutesinger when she had run away from the Spahn Ranch on July 30 and Frank Retz had driven her to the police station."

Looks like Charlie and co got their sums wrong there, does it not ?Shorty got married on July 1st '69. The marriage broke down 2 weeks later. His wife moved to LA and according to the guy he worked for, Shorty moved to LA a couple of weeks after that. But no one thought to look at Kitty....

out of 30 or so people at the ranch why the same 4 or 5 people involved in every act except Shea?

You really need to ask Charlie that. But we do know that some people like Ella Jo, Paul, Brooks and TJ refused. As did a young Texan called Charles "Sunshine" Pierce who later told some Texan police about it, according to Ed Sanders.

Nobody is claiming Manson was a choir boy just not a killer

Were Hitler, Bin Laden, Stalin, Amin and Pol Pot killers ?

people dont kill or order 9 people killed because theyre "mad at society"

No offence, but sometimes, your naivete is little short of astounding. There are tons of people that have killed or inspired killings because they were pissed off with society {or members of it} for a variety of reasons, some justifiable, others not, with the express consequence that they abandoned any empathy they had with societies morals or rules or members and they lashed out.

You left out the most important part, Vince knowingly sent a man to death row on a faulty questionable motive

Questionable, yes. He questioned it himself. He questioned it when it initially came to him, he questioned it subsequent to conviction. I would say that was pretty conscientious.But the funny thing is that he talked to Charlie about HS and asked him when he thought the Blacks were going to take over and Charlie replied "I may have put a clog in it" to which Bugliosi asked "You mean the trial alerted Whitey ?" to which Charlie replied "yeah."

When did i say Rostau was a suspect? I said he delivered drugs to Cielo which he did, no dope dealer is going to admit to cops that they made a drug delivery i dont care if it was 15 years prior its just not done

I never said you said he was a suspect.My point was that if Rostau had delivered drugs to Cielo and admitted it, he would have been in no more trouble than he already was. The police looked at quite a few dealers. How many of them, just out of interest, were ever busted for what they told the cops of their proclivities ? Exactly. None of them. Why ? Because the police had bigger fish to fry.But Rostau obviously told the cops he didn't drop drugs off at Cielo. You're just desperate to shoehorn any flight of fancy you can into your weak, unsustainable, unsubstantiated theory which prevents you from even considering that he didn't.

He also believes that if a guy delivers drugs to a house where 5 people are murdered thats hes going to be truthful when he tells cops that he didnt

He may well be truthful if the alternative is becoming a suspect. The cops already knew he dealt in drugs. This was a case where even the serial confessors didn't come forward to claim they'd done it.

According to our amateur Sherlock Holmes Grim you dont leave prints if you push a car, maybe ill check with Scotland Yard in the morning

This is precisely why so few people can honestly take you seriously. If I said that you don't leave prints on a car, then even I'd have to admit that that was leaving myself open to ridicule because it's a ridiculous statement. What I actually said was "If you push a car you are just as likely to leave smudged prints as clear ones."In other words, instead of trying to shoehorn in a "Charlie went to Cielo later that morning" theory by rejecting any possibility that he may not have, I remain open to the possibility that he might have but refuse to use faulty assumptions to try to prove what cannot be proven. If you push a car, you might leave very clear prints or in the act of pushing something of that weight you might superimpose print on print or smudge prints, in either case they can be unreadable. Can be. Read it well, Dave.Sheerluck says 'hi' !

Lol so lets get this straight if Rostau admits to police that he did make a drug drop off at Cielo hed be in jo more trouble than if he ssys he didnt? If he admitted that ill gaurantee you hed at the very least be held for additional questioning and be given the bright lights and rubber hose treatment by detectives, hed be basically re inforcing what investigators first thought the motive was

Oh Bobby, I'm far behind and trying to catch up but can't let another day pass without telling you how great it is...always, to see you here...your compassion, your true understanding and goodness...please don't go away...you are the best.

Even if Tex and the girls killed because they thought it would please Charlie or they would gain his respect and acceptance hes still INVOLVED

No he's not.

Lol Bobby killed Hinman because he was terrified that if he didnt either get the thousand bucks back or kill him the Satans were going to kill him

You should try and actually find out a little about the case before you comment so authoritatively on them. On CieloDrive.com there are whole transcripts of Bobby's last 5 parole hearings and believe me, what you've just outlined there isn't even close to the reason Gary Hinman was killed. It's not the reason Susan Atkins ever gave, it's not the reason Mary Brunner ever gave, it's not the reason Charles Manson gives to George Stimson and it's not the reason Bobby Beausoleil gave. If one actually believes Bobby's story, the reason Gary was killed was because of Charlie.

Theres no proof of the 5 grand either, matter of fact this is the first time ive heard that figure

You're right there. There have been a variety of figures banded about. Charlie says $64. Bobby says $1000. Susan said $20,000 and $21,000 {about 30 years apart}. Mary gave different figures at different times. Danny DeCarlo said around $20,000.

The Satans had already come to the ranch and beaten and threatened Bobby

One of the things that really strains the credibility of Bobby's story is the tight timeline. He says he picked up the drugs from Gary on Friday night and delivered them to the Satans. But he says he spent only 36 or so hours at Gary's trying to get the money back in his attempt to get away from the official narrative. If Gary died on Sunday evening, that means Bobby had to have been there from Saturday afternoon. If he delivered the drugs to the Satans late Friday or the early hours of Saturday morning and a mescaline trip can last anything from 8~16 hours, exactly when did the Satans get sick on the bunk drugs ? How long was it before the Satans concluded that 1000 tablets or capsules of mescaline were bad ? How long did they take to recover and get up to Spahn to threaten and beat up Bobby and how long did it take for Bobby to get hold of Charlie, get advice, get hold of Danny, get advice and get hold of Bruce, get the gun, get hold of Mary & Susan etc, etc. That's one tight timeline, and that's before one even considers that Ella Jo claims she was told to go with Bobby or that Mary said they went there at night and that both her & Susan said they were there 3 days.

Rob King said...

Think of it this way

Hiya Leary old mate ! Great to see a couple of posts from you. You should write more. Even when you fly in unannounced, your stuff is worth reading.

for some reason most people refuse to even entertain the thought that Charlie really didnt order Tex and the girls to kill anyone or that the Crowe shooting was done in response to a genuine threat from him

I'm not at all sure that most people refuse to entertain the thought. Across the various sites over the last 13 years there's been a substantial body on both sides, I'd say.As for the Crowe shooting, the shooting could well have been in self defence but you then have to believe that Crowe went for Charlie. The jury never got to be in on that one ! A couple of different stories from Charlie have seen the light on that one and they have variations. Then there's the story he told AC Fisher Aldag which puts an even greater spin on things.I would be ready to give Charlie the benefit of the doubt on Crowe if it wasn't for the plan he hatched "with" TJ before they went in. That introduces an element of deliberation too weighty to fall into the "just in case" category.

the fact that so many people refuse to even consider what i laid out shows you what a masterful job Bugliosi did in painting Manson as the boogeyman

Of course Bugliosi did a masterful job in painting Manson as the bogeyman. It was masterful because Charlie had put so many layers of defence in front to keep himself covered. Bugliosi broke through all of that to get to the real mastermind, even if he wasn't much of one. This is what Charlie really has found hard to take, if you ask me. He thought he could stick it to the Man but yet again, the Man stuck it to him. One of the strangest things I ever heard was Charlie writing to Bugliosi and Bugliosi not replying so Charlie wrote back to berate him for not replying.

and Charlie being the unloved attention starved kid ate it right up and played right into Vinces hands

By the time Charlie was arrested in Death Valley, unloved and attention starved are hardly terms that honestly applied to him !

I would never buy a book any of them wrote and make them money

Well, if, like Tex and Susan they were giving them away for free, yeah. Otherwise, buy the books second hand ! That way, the author gets zilch, if you feel that strongly about it.

Brian G said...

They all jumped on Atkins story to appear crazy

Then why did none of them put on a psychiatric defence ? Why did Pat never use anything that she told the psych doc in Mobile ? Why did LVH fire Marvin Part as soon as he tried to steer things in an insanity direction ? Why, when Atkins' lawyer said he was going to put on an insanity defence did she fire him ?Only Tex went the insanity route so your point doesn't stand up.

LVH testified the Part interview was nonsense

Leslie also testified she was at Hinman as part of that murder. Do you believe that too ?You can discount the penalty phase testimony. Their lawyers knew it was bunk, Bugliosi knew it was bunk, Charlie knew it was bunk, the jury knew it was bunk and most importantly, the 3 women and Gypsy came out afterwards and said it was bunk. The penalty phase testimony was designed for one purpose only ~ to ensure Charlie didn't get the death penalty and it was an almighty failure of epic proportions.

SAG said...

Lake doesnt know shit, she was 14 years old

She knew enough to be riding Charlie horse. She knew enough to be able to describe how LSD was affecting her state of mind and to know it wasn't right. She knew enough to land Leslie in jail for life. Charlie was stealing cars and committing armed robberies at 14. In some parts of the world, people are husbands, wives and mums at 14. Not necessarily right, but 14 year olds aren't to be underestimated.

I would have given him a big "Hello" (when he came in), but I refrained, because I wasn't sure if he wanted everyone to know, that he also posts as "Rob King".(I only know that he's also known as "Rob King", because he shared an email address with me years ago, with that name...)

But since Grim just "let the cat out of the bag":HI LEARY!GREAT TO SEE YOU! I HOPE YOU'RE DOING WELL.

Leslie landed herself in jail for life, at 14 you dont know shit about the world unless youre Charlie and youve bern fending for yourself for a few years by then, Diane knew nothing except how to suck her daddy off and how to take orders from Charlie, youre in your 50s and still dont know shit about this case

I used acid here and there when i was 14-15 and knew by the weird shit i experienced that it wasnt good but you dont havevto be a worldly or experienced person to know that when youre seeing object taking on different shapes and everyday sights and sounds becoming distorted that it idnt going to be a healthy thing long term but i still didnt understand shit about the world or people

Tex, Susan and the rest of the girls werent as "controlled"as it was painted, Tex and Susan especially had their own lives pulling scams outside the ranch and away from Charlies influence, they came back sround when they needed protection and stability

Manson used MONTHS trying to control the court during his trial. WHAT A WASTE OF FUCKING TIME!!!

I won't even go into the particulars, because we all know what it is.

The court bent over backwards for that goomer and it was NEVER ENOUGH!

And he, and others, STILL say he didn't get a fair trial. He got the FAIREST TRIAL of anyone in the 20th Century, considering what he did, what he continued to do, what he TRIED to do, and what he failed to do. Mainly, convince the jury that he was innocent, despite disrupting the court for months with his childish BULLSHIT!

I know he bragged to another prisoner about how much of a "bad ass" he was for stabbing Sharon and his overkill job on Frykowski

We don't know that. What it does show though is how attaching oneself to any little aspect of this case is a sport that knows no bounds of race, class, gender, job, financial status, prisoner or free person.

the only things i believe about his generally bullshit testimony from his trisl is that i believe that him and the girls did walk in the front door after being invited in by Voytek and Jay

So.....you therefore don't believe Atkins about Jay and Sharon chatting on the bed as she relayed to Virginia Graham and the Grand jury or that Frykowski was asleep on the couch ?

the first homicide report, near the end police give a synopsis of how they think the crime happened, the lines they say could have been cut either before or after

I've noticed, you put an awful lot of faith in that first Tate report. None of the theories outlined in the two Tate reports bear any similarity whatsoever to what we know happened ~ whether you go with HS or copycat.The police were flying blind when those reports came out and at best, serve as eliminators. I don't know why you keep quoting them ~ they eliminate your drug theory comprehensively. Yes, the police had all kinds of thoughts because when the bodies were discovered, there was absolutely nothing to go on {ie, nothing that they were taking on board}. Drugs were found there and as they dug into the victims, it became clear that 4 of them had some kind of drug usage in their lives ~ to varying degrees.In reality the police reports demonstrate just how far off the track the police actually were. But that's not a criticism of them. I would argue that their legwork and investigation were crucial to the case being solved. Once the Family elements started coming together, their hard work ensured that there were no competing elements. It's ironic that you keep majoring on what was in the police reports ~ they had stopped doing that by November '69.The Family tried to push the drug theory and mixed it in with the copycat and even when they did that, their take on the drugs bears no relation to yours.It's not rocket science to state the phone wires could've been cut before or after the crime. But one has to ask what kind of killer fleeing the scene stops to cut the wires ?

katie8753 said...

Garretson..admits he heard the gunfire that shot Parent, but he thought it was firecrackers.So, knowing that something horrible must have happened, he just hunkers down in that house for the night?

It doesn't follow that if he heard what he thought was firecrackers that he knows something horrible has happened.

FRIENDS

"Charlie Manson is a five foot seven schizophrenic, who if it weren't for the murder of Sharon Tate, would never be known or discussed. And I'm not saying he isn't funny and entertaining. I'm saying he's a dime a dozen criminal-class punk, who had the good fortune of running into some middle class pseudo-revolutionary white girls." -- Tom G

"The simple and undeniable truth, is that Charlie and the gang were/are the biggest idiots, morons and imbeciles on the planet." -- Leary7

"Them fucking fruitcakes could not pour piss out of a boot, with the bottom written on it."--Harold True